BB exploiting-insecure-data-storage-in-mobile
Identifies and exploits insecure local data storage vulnerabilities in Android and iOS mobile applications including unencrypted databases, world-readable files, insecure SharedPreferences, plaintext credential storage, and improper keychain/keystore usage. Use when performing mobile penetration testing focused on OWASP M9 (Insecure Data Storage) or assessing compliance with MASVS-STORAGE requirements. Activates for requests involving mobile data storage security, local storage exploitation, SharedPreferences analysis, or mobile data leakage assessment.
Identifies and exploits insecure local data storage vulnerabilities in Android and iOS mobile applications including unencrypted databases, world-readable…
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, progress reporting
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:6Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)usage. Use when performing mobile penetration testing focused on OWASP M9 (Insecure
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "domain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "subdomain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "atlas_techniques" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_ai_rmf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 183): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 19 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1669 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -43 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- -32 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 559: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 19 items
- +4Has examples (10 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.